Smt. Maya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046802
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-07-2013
AppellantSmt. Maya
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
high court of madhya pradesh jabalpur criminal revision no.1612/2012 smt. maya vs. state of m.p. and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- present : hon'ble shri justice n.k. gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- name of counsel for the parties: shri b.k. upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. shri ajay tamrakar, panel lawyer for the respondent no.1/state. shri pradeep naveriya, counsel for the respondent no.2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- order (passed on 7th day of march, 2013) the applicant has challenged the order dated 19.7.2012 passed by the special judge under sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act (hereinafter it would be referred as “the special act”.), chhindwara in special case no.34/12, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under section 346, 506 part-ii, 384, 294 of ipc and in alternate, the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the special act were framed against the applicant.2. the prosecution's case, in short is that, on 27.2.2002 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning, the prosecutrix was cooking in her house situated at lingpani district chhindwara, the accused 2 criminal revision no.1612/2012 dashrath came in her house and committed rape upon her. in the meantime, her husband came back and therefore, the accused dashrath ran away from the spot. the prosecutrix told the entire story to the witness jagannath, anand and other persons, who came after hearing hue and cry done by the prosecutrix. thereafter, the prosecutrix and her husband were going to amarwada to lodge an fir then, in between lingpani and amarwada, the accused persons namely tikaram and asharam held the prosecutrix and took her on the motorcycle. they took her to the township of amarwada and she was confined in a room of the house of one sharan seth. the applicant maya was residing in that portion and the prosecutrix was confined in the custody of the applicant. they threatened the prosecutrix. the prosecutrix was kept for six months. thereafter, she was released after getting her thumb impression appended upon some blank papers. she was informed that a matter under section 125 of cr.p.c. was also lodged against her husband without her knowledge. after her release, she went to the police station, amarwada but s.h.o. k.k. tiwari did not write her report and threatened her that if she does not go from the police station then, she would be confined by lodging a false case against her. thereafter, the prosecutrix had lodged a criminal complaint before the a.c.j.m. amarwada, which was registered and case was committed to the special court.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3 criminal revision no.1612/2012 4. the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are so many documents on record before the trial court by which it would be clear that the complaint made by the prosecutrix to the s.d.o.p. was inquired and it was found that no such crime was committed with the prosecutrix. on the contrary, the prosecutrix gave her statement to the press that the persons of “gondwana mahasangh”. were making her defamation and therefore, the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix appears to be incorrect. no charge against the applicant could be framed. in such circumstance, the entire complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is incorrect. the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the hon'ble apex court in the case of “satish mehra vs. delhi administration and another”. [(1996) 9 scc 766]..5. on the other hand, the learned panel lawyer opposes the application. he has submitted that the concerned paper news and the report of the s.d.o.p. are yet to be proved before the court and therefore, it is prayed that the revision filed by the applicant may not be accepted.6. the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside.7. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, if the evidence collected by the prosecution 4 criminal revision no.1612/2012 is considered, then it would be apparent that the prosecutrix was examined before the committal court and she gave her statement on oath. her statement cannot be brushed aside at this stage. by the report given by the s.d.o.p. concerned, which depends upon various documents, it appears that there are different versions told by the prosecutrix but at present, it cannot be said that out of the different versions given by the prosecutrix which is correct. it cannot be said that there is no chance of any conviction in the present case and therefore, the accused persons may not be permitted to be harassed by the prosecution of the case. at present, the appreciation of evidence cannot be done. it cannot be said that other statements given by the prosecutrix were given under pressure or not. it is for the accused to prove the report given by the d.s.p. or the paper news that it was the prosecutrix who gave such a news. under such circumstances, at this stage no appreciation of evidence can be done. hence, looking to the position of the evidence in the case, the principle laid down by the hon'ble apex court in the case of satish mehra (supra) cannot be applied.8. since the appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage and defence evidence is not so cogent by which the entire prosecution's case may go away then, at present it was for the trial court to proceed with the case by framing the charges and therefore, if the charges are framed against the applicant, then no 5 criminal revision no.1612/2012 illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned special judge.9. there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the learned special judge by way of the present revision. consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed.10. a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information. (n.k. gupta) judge 07 03.2013 pnkj
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1612/2012 Smt. Maya Vs. State of M.P. and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri B.K. Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the respondent No.2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(Passed on 7th day of March, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 19.7.2012 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as “the Special Act”.), Chhindwara in Special Case No.34/12, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Section 346, 506 part-II, 384, 294 of IPC and in alternate, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act were framed against the applicant.

2. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 27.2.2002 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning, the prosecutrix was cooking in her house situated at Lingpani District Chhindwara, the accused 2 Criminal Revision No.1612/2012 Dashrath came in her house and committed rape upon her. In the meantime, her husband came back and therefore, the accused Dashrath ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix told the entire story to the witness Jagannath, Anand and other persons, who came after hearing hue and cry done by the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and her husband were going to Amarwada to lodge an FIR then, in between Lingpani and Amarwada, the accused persons namely Tikaram and Asharam held the prosecutrix and took her on the motorcycle. They took her to the township of Amarwada and she was confined in a room of the house of one Sharan Seth. The applicant Maya was residing in that portion and the prosecutrix was confined in the custody of the applicant. They threatened the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was kept for six months. Thereafter, she was released after getting her thumb impression appended upon some blank papers. She was informed that a matter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was also lodged against her husband without her knowledge. After her release, she went to the Police Station, Amarwada but S.H.O. K.K. Tiwari did not write her report and threatened her that if she does not go from the police station then, she would be confined by lodging a false case against her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix had lodged a criminal complaint before the A.C.J.M. Amarwada, which was registered and case was committed to the Special Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3 Criminal Revision No.1612/2012 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are so many documents on record before the trial Court by which it would be clear that the complaint made by the prosecutrix to the S.D.O.P. was inquired and it was found that no such crime was committed with the prosecutrix. On the contrary, the prosecutrix gave her statement to the press that the persons of “Gondwana Mahasangh”. were making her defamation and therefore, the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix appears to be incorrect. No charge against the applicant could be framed. In such circumstance, the entire complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is incorrect. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another”. [(1996) 9 SCC 766]..

5. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application. He has submitted that the concerned paper news and the report of the S.D.O.P. are yet to be proved before the Court and therefore, it is prayed that the revision filed by the applicant may not be accepted.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside.

7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, if the evidence collected by the prosecution 4 Criminal Revision No.1612/2012 is considered, then it would be apparent that the prosecutrix was examined before the committal Court and she gave her statement on oath. Her statement cannot be brushed aside at this stage. By the report given by the S.D.O.P. concerned, which depends upon various documents, it appears that there are different versions told by the prosecutrix but at present, it cannot be said that out of the different versions given by the prosecutrix which is correct. It cannot be said that there is no chance of any conviction in the present case and therefore, the accused persons may not be permitted to be harassed by the prosecution of the case. At present, the appreciation of evidence cannot be done. It cannot be said that other statements given by the prosecutrix were given under pressure or not. It is for the accused to prove the report given by the D.S.P. or the paper news that it was the prosecutrix who gave such a news. Under such circumstances, at this stage no appreciation of evidence can be done. Hence, looking to the position of the evidence in the case, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra (supra) cannot be applied.

8. Since the appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage and defence evidence is not so cogent by which the entire prosecution's case may go away then, at present it was for the trial court to proceed with the case by framing the charges and therefore, if the charges are framed against the applicant, then no 5 Criminal Revision No.1612/2012 illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Special Judge.

9. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge by way of the present revision. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 07 03.2013 pnkj